Enemalta supplies lighting energy but works in darkness. The corporation tries to impress upon us how everything is going well and “on track” but we never know what is this track and whether Enemalta is on it or has gone offroad. Instead of the promised transparency we have broken promises, concealment and cover-ups.
From zero tolerance to corruption we now have zero action against corruption. Consider, for example, the scandal of the tampered meters, first brought to light by a Parliamentary Question I tabled last January. I am certain the government intended to cover this up; they only admitted it after I presented my parliamentary question. This story is in fact, not one scandal but a whole series of them.
The first is that thousands of people bribed Enemalta employees. There were thus two crimes: bribery and theft. The second is that someone close to Minister Konrad Mizzi was involved and the minister tried to protect them. The third scandal is that the government refused to take legal steps against the corruptors and interfered in police work to impose its political decision.
It is clear that, in the fight against corruption, Joseph Muscat makes electoral calculations. Who is he protecting? In the total blackout of information, all assumptions become legitimate.
Moreover, we have now found out only €10 million will be collected out of the €90 million Mizzi has calculated that Enemalta lost in the past three years due to this scam.
The whole energy project for which Mizzi is responsible is cloaked in secrecy. First of all, what is now being undertaken is quite different to what was proposed originally. Among the major and significant differences are that we were promised 60,000 cubic metres of LNG storage on land while we’ll now be having double that capacity aboard a ship. They had also told us that we would have a 10-year fixed-price contract for the purchase of electricity but this has been shortened to five years.
The government hopes to fool us into believing that its sole aim is to reduce tariffs but it is very clear that tariff reduction was due to the BWSC plant’s efficiency which will be saving Enemalta a staggering €1 million a week.
Out of the €52 million a year saved, only €25 million will be passed on to consumers in the form of tariff reduction.
This plant, infamously des-cribed by Labour as a “cancer factory”, has become one of Enemalta’s assets and has been sold to the Chinese government for €100 million. Moreover the much-maligned heavy fuel oil is still being used.
Studies carried out by experts engaged by Mepa have shown that the use of this fuel in the past years has had no adverse effect on emissions and human health.
Even on the rate of reduction itself there is misinformation. Officially this will be of about 25 per cent, and Mizzi is on record saying that a good number of families will even save 35 per cent. However, working out the tariffs for different categories of families, it turns out that the average saving will be of only 20 per cent.
The “contract” with Electrogas is still being kept secret. Why hasn’t the government published it? No fanfare and no press conference marked its signing.
In fact, Malta will be bound to purchase electricity from the private contractor even when it is more expensive than the interconnector cable.
Again, what’s keeping the government from publishing the feasibility studies on other alternatives such as the gas pipeline, for which the previous government had received €1 million from the EU? What about the €30 million upfront money that Electrogas was supposed to pay and which was supposed to fund the tariff reductions? I hope that at least one promise is kept: that of building the new power station by next March.
The whole energy project for which Konrad Mizzi is responsible is cloaked in secrecy
And, while on the subject of energy bills, let us not forget that, thanks to the smart meters, consumers will now start being charged on actual, rather than estimated, consumption.
The way that bills are being calculated, however, using the pro-rata method, consumers will be affected badly as regards the rate being charged as well as possibly losing the eco-reduction.
Let me give an example:
Every person has an allocated annual quota of 1,750 units; 291.6 every two months.
If a person consumes 292 units in two months (1 unit more than allocated) the eco-reduction will be lost.
If, in the next two months, 100 units will be consumed, the eco-reduction will not be lost but the energy saved in this second period will not make up and balance the surplus energy consumed in the previous one.
The way bills were calculated previously meant that the two periods were calculated together. In our example, consumption would reach 392 (292+100) for four months, less than the allocated quota of 583 units (291.6 x 2) so no eco-reduction would be lost. In the previous system, calculations were made on the average consumption every six months rather than every two.
I believe there should be an ‘annual adjustment bill process’ – as there is in Italy – so that any loss in eco reduction that a consumer might have suffered during the year can be refunded if that consumer does not overstep the annual consumption quota of 1,750 units.
There are more questions that need answering by the government. Is it true that money collected by ARMS during 2013 was less than in 2012? And is it true that even in the first quarter of 2014 the money collected was less than that for the same period last year? (Tariff reductions became applicable on April 1).
Is this the efficiency of ARMS today? Is it true that even the bills paid through direct credit have not all been collected? Two weeks ago they said that such bills will start being collected. Has this actually happened or are there still technical problems?
Finally one has to ask whether it is true that ARMS is going to increase its management fees to Enemalta and WSC.
Having allegedly become so much more efficient, I would have expected fees to decrease, rather than increase!
At this point I would like to refer to relations between Enemalta and the energy regulator: Malta Resources Authority (MRA).
While it is good that rates were reduced due to lower costs by Enemalta, because of the BWSC plant, the government should publish the correspondence between Enemalta or the Ministry for Energy and MRA.
Is it true that the minister instructed MRA to accept that Enemalta will start making profit only in 2019, in six years time?
Is it true that MRA was asked to accept this in the name of ‘public interest’? The government should publish the letter in which this appeal was made.
Who is going to make good for the losses Enemalta will incur until 2019?
And, if all this is true, why was Mizzi quoted by Malta Today, last September, saying that “Enemalta must be profitable in three years”? How did the three years become six? What has changed from September to today?
Finally, can the government reveal what it told MRA regarding projections on operational costs of Enemalta? How many employees will keep their job in the coming years?
George Pullicino is the Opposition spokesman on energy and water conservation.